| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.44 pm
Ms Margaret Hodge (Barking): It is almost second nature to the Government, when they want to change things, to act in an arrogant and autocratic way. That was their intent in changing the school premises regulations. If it had not been for the persistence of our Front-Bench team, we would not be sitting here tonight, even at this
late hour, subjecting the proposals to some sort of public debate and justification. This is not proper scrutiny--I have already learnt, in my brief time in the House, that the Government rarely allow proper scrutiny of their proposals--but at least we have this limited opportunity to question and challenge them on their proposals.
First, let us ask ourselves why the Government wanted to rush these important changes through the House without subjecting them to debate. Was it that they knew that they could not rationally justify the proposals?Was it that they knew that there was almost universal opposition to the proposals? Was it that the Secretary of State knew in her heart of hearts that the new regulations were yet one further step in the wrong direction; yet one further step which would work against raising standards in our schools?
The new proposals will lower standards, not improve them. They will prepare the ground for further cuts in capital investment in our schools, not lead to the much-needed physical improvement in our schools for which we are crying out. They will reduce opportunity for children, not enhance it. They will turn the clock back, not prepare us for the challenges of the next century.
The quality of the school premises in which our children are taught is a vital factor in ensuring a high-quality educational offer--not the only factor, but a vital one. Everyone acknowledges that, and the Secretary of State, as a former teacher and inspector, knows it to be true. That is why we regulate school premises. Regulation here is not some old-fashioned bit of bureaucratic nonsense. It is not about a lot of mandarins and Ministers wanting to add to their sense of self-importance by shifting bits of paper around the system. It is about sensible rules laid down by Parliament to ensure that minimum standards are enjoyed by all our children in all schools.
No one wants the unnecessary, time-consuming and wasteful bureaucracy which over-regulation can bring, but equally, allowing an obsession with deregulation to destroy those elements of our statutory framework which are an essential basis for good teaching is wicked and wrong. It is putting dogma before common sense, and allowing one value and one policy to undermine other more important values and policies. It is sacrificing the needs of our children on the altar of yet another piece of Tory ideology.
The Government often quote the words of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools to justify their policies and actions, yet they hear only what they want to hear. When his words do not suit the Government's preconceived purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has shown, the Government choose to ignore them.
It was the chief inspector who said that space standards were not good enough. No doubt, in 12 or 15 months' time, when the chickens start coming home to roost on this bit of legislation, when stories start appearing in the press about even more overcrowded classrooms and inadequate facilities to teach the national curriculum, what will the Government do? They will play their usual trick and blame the schools, the teachers, the governors--anyone and everyone but themselves.
In this area, as in so many others, the Government have changed their mind. It was, ironically, a Government under the stronger control of the far more dogma-driven
Baroness Thatcher who introduced the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981. She realised that school premises were an appropriate and important area for Government regulation. What has happened to make this Government change their mind?
The answer lies in the Government's bungling mismanagement of the public expenditure budget. Instead of spending our money on investing in our children's future--a future that must include the state of the buildings in which they are taught--they waste our money keeping families on the dole. They then panic. They want to go into the next election with tax cuts, and the only way in which they can do that is by doing away with essential expenditure demands, such as the demand for capital investment in our schools.
The regulations have nothing to do with setting schools free. They have everything to do with setting the Government free from their obligation to ensure appropriate physical standards in our schools.
Let us look at what the Minister responsible, the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), said when the 1981 regulations were introduced. He started by saying that
There was a universal acknowledgement of the importance of regulation in this sphere.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to applaud the fact that the 1981 regulations would introduce a bigger minimum teaching area for the upper junior and middle school age ranges. He stressed:
Looking back at that debate, we can see how dire the standards in our schools were then. We lay at the bottom of the league of northern European countries in terms of the teaching area available per child. My guess is that the position has probably got worse relative to the rest of Europe over the past 15 years, as an inevitable consequence of the cuts in capital spending. Perhaps the Minister can tell us; but I doubt that she will.
The 1981 regulations were, and remain, sensible measures to ensure minimum standards so that schools are fit for their purpose--to provide the best and only first chance children have to enjoy a good-quality education. The Government are failing in their proper duty if they ask the House to agree to the regulations tonight, and stop taking responsibility for space standards in all our schools.
Mr. Spearing:
As the Government have a national curriculum, and as they have issued guidelines to schools, is there not a moral obligation on them to work out the cost of the necessary space for that curriculum, in the light of the guidelines, and then to work out a minimum construction cost per place for each variety of school?
Ms Hodge:
I take that point entirely. [Laughter.] Time is limited.
What freedom is being promoted? What about the rights and freedoms of our children and their parents? They should feel secure and free in the knowledge that
they do not have to worry about minimum space standards. The truth is that this nasty piece of legislation is not about handing freedoms to anybody: it is about lowering standards--levelling down, not levelling up. It is about cuts.
Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton):
I am grateful to be called in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. Indeed,I am glad that the debate has happened at last. I am glad that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside(Mr. Blunkett) has made it to the late shift tonight.
I felt deeply frustrated 10 days ago when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I were here, but the hon. Member for Brightside was not here to move the Labour party's motion on this important subject. Now, tonight, we are all here, able to notch up more than 48 hours in this working week doing our stuff on behalf of our constituents and the important pupils in our constituencies.
I welcome the aspect of the regulations that protects school playing fields. About 10 years ago, my local authority area of Kingston upon Thames had a Liberal council--unfortunately, we now have one again--which sold two areas of school playing fields. Such sales are deeply opposed by Conservative Members. I certainly opposed the sale of sports fields during my time as Minister for Sport, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). I am therefore glad that these regulations--very much in response to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said--protect school playing fields.
At the same time, the regulations provide valuable deregulation. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, there has been far too much over-regulation and far too little flexibility in schools regulations. The Government have tried to give greater and greater responsibility to local education authorities--too many of which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) pointed out, are now controlled by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, which is always a recipe for disaster. Nevertheless, they must have more delegated powers, and, more importantly, schools must have local management powers. That is what we are trying to achieve through deregulation.
Inevitably, parents, governors and head teachers have worries.
"the regulations . . . would have been introduced by whatever Government was in power."
"These are minimum standards, since any local authority . . . can provide more."--[Official Report, Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., 28 July 1981; c. 3.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |